On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:08 PM, RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if portsnap actually needs to behave the way it does. > > Portsnap stores its compressed snapshot as one .gz file for each > port plus one for each additional file (files in Mk/ etc). When you > do an "update" any modified snapshot files are extracted over > the appropriate location in the ports tree. > > The reason that "portsnap extract" deletes patch-files is that before > each .gz file is extracted, the corresponding file or port directory is > deleted. I wonder why, if an "update" can decompress over the top of a > port, an "extract" need to delete it first. I can't think of any good > reason offhand. > > Modifying portsnap not to delete extra files is just a matter of > deleting one line. The behaviour of portsnap extract would then be > virtually identical to csup. Alternately, it wouldn't be much harder to > create a new portsnap command.
I would presume that it does that to get rid of "standard" patch files that are no longer part of the port... Jim Trigg _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
